JAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10121 times:
It seems that eventually the all new 777-300 and 747 replacement wide body from Boeing will be called Y3. Would it make sense for Boeing to have such a replacement with a 747 like 'hump'? To me this would give Boeing the flexibility of having a large passenger widebody with double deck capability, plus a replacement for many 747 cargo aircraft especially for cargo carriers who need nose loading capability. I know the decision for Y3 is probably 10 to 15 yrs away and market and technology changes will really influence design. Versions of the 787 will eventually replace 767 and maybe 777-200 versions but what about the bigger Boeings? What do you guys and girls think?
Bringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10066 times:
I dont think it would have a hump but then again I am not completely sold over the fact that the a.neterz Proposed Y3 ( ranging from larger then 350-10XWB to the A388 size) will even be something that would sell well given that a larger XWB10-X or a 787-11 could well take the lower end of the market (given weight savings over a decade) whilest The 747-I holds on for about 8-10 years while the CASM for the heavier 787-11 and 350XWB-X become more favourable !! The market may fragment still !!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21313 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10036 times:
If Y3 is 11 abreast, the crown space will be ample. I personally think a design where all crew operations are in the crown is a possibility. Cockpit, then pilot rest including W/C and avionics, then F/J prep galley, then Y ovens and storage galley, then crew rest including W/C.
Leaves entire main deck for pax, and the possibility of a nose door for a cargo version. Cargo version would cut the crown facilities off after smaller galley, for taller cargo like in current 747 design.
Bringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9992 times:
I know it is a boeing proposed Y3 but my reference was to the fact that it keeps comming up frequently in discussions here ( i use it aswell) , boeing had a product strategy following project 20xx into yellowstone however no where is it rigid and the next decade could change their plans either way
If Wikipedia is correct ("Y3 will cover 300 passengers and beyond"), then I believe that 11-abreast will be too wide. The airplane would probably end up being extremely short if it's going to be so wide.
Boeing's Y3 is just a study it has no form, a few A.netters that act as armchair engineers and armchair-market analysts will somehow EXPECT things of the new airplane, if it is to exist. I can make up numbers, combine them with power and drag graphs, come up with a range and endurance parameter, etc -- all with out a shape. Preliminary engineering has nothing to do with image, it is all definition. Does anyone realize how much logic is lost when things are assumed? According to Boeing, (not wikipedia - I don't trust that shit), Y3 as it stands is for the 300-600 pax range - it is a range, nothing is set. Standard tube'n wing has its limits, which I would suppose people are familiar with stretching aircraft. But to insist that is how it will be deserves a beating, IMO.
What if an aircraft's cross-section varied throughout its length, any capacity possibilites there? This may be Boeing's last big aircraft, it will have to take the test of time, unless the world population suddenly explodes, Boeing has more than enough time to deicde if need be.
I'm not going to entertain the traditionalists with dreams of an oversized 777.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9752 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 3): Oh, man. This would be a total nightmare.
How so? 11 abreast would be 3-5-3. Many 777s already have 5 seat center blocks.
Quoting RedChili (Reply 5): I'm no aircraft engineer, but I would guess that a 787-11 would be stretching the airplane too far. They will probably have to strengthen the airframe a lot, and thereby adding a lot of weight.
Strength is not the issue. Stiffness is the issue. CFRP is naturally very stiff. Anyway, a B787-11 would still be shorter than the A340-600 and have a taller fuselage. There may be other reasons to not build a B787-11, but fuselage strength and stiffness are not among them.
KBFIspotter From United States of America, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9430 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 7): Boeing originally put the hump there so the cargo can enter the nose with the cockpit on top, per original USAF C-5 proposal aircraft.
Not quite true... Boeing transfered much of the design team from the CHX competition over to the 747 program when Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed, and that is where the simularities end. Per Joe Sutter's book, the hump was designed for the sole purpose of allowing straight in loading of cargo, and it was only going to be for the flight deck. It was Juan Trippe of Pan Am who decided that the space behind the flight deck should be used for pax.